I believe there will be a subset of words for logic as the english language and the definitions can be interpreted in different ways leading to false determinations.
I am sure the interpretaions of many languages might lead to false determinations. What being said or what was printed was not clear, and different people have differnent interpretations for the same word. Some words that sound alike can only be determinded in context with other words with in what is said. i.e. The sail/sale is in the back. Is the person talking about a boat sail or a sale? Of course there are the oxymoron like giant shrimp, honest government. Regarding stockmarket oxymorons... Helium was up, feathers were down. Paper was stationary. Fluorescent tubing was dimmed in light trading. Knives were up sharply, but dulled in late trading. Cows steered into a bull market. Pencils lost a few points. Hiking equipment was trailing. Elevators rose, while escalators continued their slow decline. Weights were up in heavy trading. Light switches were off. Mining equipment hit rock bottom. Diapers remain unchanged. Shipping lines stayed at an even keel. The market for raisins dried up. Coca Cola fizzled. Caterpillar stock inched up a bit. Sun peaked at midday. Balloon prices were inflated. Scott Tissue touched a new bottom. Batteries exploded in an attempt to recharge the market. Dan Goe ---------------------------------------------------- >From : John Scanlon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To : <[email protected]> Subject : [agi] Logic and Knowledge Representation Date : Sun, 7 May 2006 02:40:06 -0400 > Is anyone interested in discussing the use of formal logic as the foundation for knowledge representation schemes for AI? It's a common approach, but I think it's the wrong path. Even if you add probability or fuzzy logic, it's still insufficient for true intelligence. > > The human brain, the only high-level intelligent system currently known, uses language and logic for abstract reasoning, but these are based on, and owe their existence to, a more fundamental level of intelligence -- that of pattern-recognition, pattern-matching, and pattern manipulation. > > Philosophers have grappled with the question of the source of knowledge for as long as there have been philosophers, and one of the best accepted answers in modern philosophy is sensory experience. Sensory experience, including proprioception and awareness of motor outputs, in addition to the ordinary five senses, is the material that knowledge is built out of. The brain constructs its logical formulations out of the basic building blocks of the sights, sounds, and feels of linguistic symbols. The symbols themselves (letters of an alphabet, words in a language, etc.) are built up out of lower-level sensory patterns. > > In evolution on earth, sensory-motor-based intelligence came first, and the use of language and logic only later. It seems to me that the right path to true AI will also use sensory-motor patterns as the basic building blocks of knowledge representation. A typical human being's knowledge of the letter "A" involves recognition of graphical representations of the symbol, memories of its sound when spoken, procedural or muscle memory of how to speak and write it, and memories of where it is commonly found in its linguistic context. A system should be capable of recognizing symbols visually or auditorially (and possibly of generating them through motor outputs) before it should be expected to comprehend them. > > Any thoughts or arguments? Or am I just repeating something everyone already knows? (I honestly don't know.) > > J.P. > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
